Cost to ‘restore climate’ a game-changer

50 to 1 project

Four days ago I received the following appeal for help. Others have posted their expressions of support and I’m a little tardy, but here it is.

Lord Christopher Monckton has teamed up with Topher Field, a documentary maker, to produce a short video for YouTube. The theme is Christopher’s calculation of the cost of fighting climate change. He uses the IPCC’s figures at every step to prove that we cannot restore the climate for anything like an affordable sum. We cannot even afford the cost of simply trying to restore the climate. Not even if each of us were Germany. The temperature just won’t go down enough.

I’m more than happy to help publicise Field’s worthy project. It could save western industrialised nations more money than they’ve dreamed of since the Industrial Revolution.

Rather than spilling endless billions uselessly into the climate change swamp making amends for our decades of climate crimes (how dare we become prosperous!) we might now pay for practical purposes like reducing pollution, providing clean water, education, medical care and persuading wayward governments to care for their nation not just their own tribe.

The project page shows the money count has already reached $27,546 towards a goal of at least $130,000. Well done, there, crowd members!!

Topher might have an odd name but he’s an attractive, persuasive speaker with a wholesome message, as you’ll see in the promotional video he provides.

He just needs a few dollars to be getting on with it.

Topher’s polite email

My name is Topher Field, I’m an Australian film maker and activist. I’m working with Lord Christopher Monckton on a project called ‘50 to 1.’

It’s all about the TRUE cost of trying to ‘stop’ climate change versus the cost of adapting to climate change as and if it happens. I think it may be of interest to you and you can see a short video which explains what it’s about here:

We are running a crowd-funding campaign to try to raise the required budget in order to make this project a reality. We would be extremely grateful for any publicity, blogging, emailing of contacts etc., which you could do in order to get the word out about this project.

Please have a look at the link and do with it as you see fit.

Best Regards

Topher Field

66
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
60 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Richard C (NZ)NickAlexander KMagooAndy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
SimonP
Guest
SimonP

So anthropogenic climate change is real then?

SimonP
Guest
SimonP

Even Anthony admits it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/02/help-launch-climate-skeptic-film-project-50-to-1/#more-85420
Anthony Watts says:
May 2, 2013 at 9:14 am
Pardon me, but, AGW is a real effect, you folks that don’t think so, get over it, you sound like the slayers/principia cult.

The real questions are. How much? How sensitive is our atmosphere to CO2, and how many, how much do feedbacks contribute/retard depending on whether they are positive or negative?

Trying to sell “AGW isn’t real” won’t fly, no matter how you frame it, because rational skeptics, from Dr. Richard Lindzen right on down acknowledge the reality of it in literature with sensitivity studies and essays.

Andy
Guest

Topher Field put a comment up at WUWT answering your question, Simon

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/02/help-launch-climate-skeptic-film-project-50-to-1/#comment-1295587

Andy
Guest

“Breaking news”

Yes Simon, and even “denier” Monckton shares these views.

The question of course, is climate sensitivity to CO2

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

1.2C maximum per doubling of total atmospheric CO2. There is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour so that’s about it.

The current CO2 levels are 397.34 ppm, up 2.89 from 394.45 ppm at the same time last year. At the rate of 2.89C/year it’ll take 275 yrs to rise 1.2C. To rise another 1.2C it’ll take another 550 yrs. on top of that, etc. – i.e. to rise 2.4C it’ll take 825 yrs.

This is on the assumption that the temperature is rising at the maximum of 1.2C per CO2 doubling, which considering it’s the maximum is doubtful.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Simon,

Yes, it’s real, but it’s just not very big, which means it’s not dangerous.

Several years ago Bob Carter advised us to use the term “dangerous anthropogenic global warming” rather than “anthropogenic global warming.” It’s a bit of a mouthful, but it’s more precise, because if the warming isn’t dangerous it isn’t worth fighting, is it? So I’ve tried consistently to do that, and I’ve never said “AGW” doesn’t exist, but I have said countless times that “DAGW” doesn’t exist. See the difference?

Have you seen Monckton’s presentation of the costs and benefits of fighting the “dangerous” climate change we’re causing?

Andy
Guest

I think Richard Lindzen used the expression “trivially true but essentially meaningless” to answer the question of whether humans were influencing the climate

Nick
Guest
Nick

Richard C doesn’t believe that AGW is real and he seems to dominate the conversation here by pasting vast swaths of text into the threads making them unreadable.

So I think Simon’s point is a valid one. Certainly I haven’t seen any evidence of anyone apart from Richard T make the effort to dispute any of Richard C’s more wacky ideas.

That said Richard C can be quite nasty when people disagree with him so I guess it’s not surprising that the regular commentators here are not willing to take the trouble to correct his misconceptions.

Andy
Guest

I don’t “know” that AGW is real, but the issue around climate sensitivity is where I limit my range of discussions to as I don’t have the time or knowledge to deal with all aspects of the science

If others have different views then they are welcome to present them

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard T,
The Stern report (p. vi) which Monckton references says the costs of climate change will be between 5-20+% of GDP.:

“Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. ”

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/2/Summary_of_Conclusions.pdf

Monckton’s report on the other hand suggest the costs will only be 0-3% of GDP.

“Stern (2006, p. vi), estimates that the cost of abating the 3 K 21st-century global warming the IPCC expects will be 0-3% of 21st-century GDP”

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_mitigation.pdf

Do you (or anyone) have any idea of how this discrepancy arises?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”So anthropogenic climate change is real then?”

LULUC? aGHG emissions? Both?

Assuming you are only referring to aGHGs Simon: for Warmers/IPCC and Luke-warmers, and those pragmatically positioning with the latter in order to highlight the reality that observations imply the IPCC’s CS estimates are perhaps a little high – the answer is yes. It is just the degree of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 that is at issue.

For others not subscribing to IPCC methodology, both RF and CS, due to the questionable rationales and having alternate hypotheses to monitor anyway e.g. a solar/celestial explanation (e.g. me) – the answer is maybe but more probably no, let’s wait and see how the climate actually trends this century. If it follows cycles of the past as is more likely expected by many of this bunch (me included), the answer is a definite no.

BTW, I’m inclined to think LULUC might be a climate factor but more in terms of regional or micro climate. I just haven’t got around to investigating it.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Do you (or anyone) have any idea of how this discrepancy arises?”

It might have been the ridiculous discount rate Stern used.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C, I don’t think so. Monckton explicitly includes the discount rate. Maybe you should have a look at the papers. The Monckton one is surprisingly short and you only need to read one page of the Stern report.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Even Anthony admits it:”

Yes, NEWS FLASH – [Luke-warmer] Anthony [subscribes] to it.

Perhaps now you’ll pay more attention to the various CC factions Simon (i.e. there’s not just 2), particularly the ongoing feud between Luke-warmers Watts/Spencer and Ultra-sceptics PSI. And the new one developing between Luke-warmer Monckton (sort of – he’s cognizant of solar) and PSI.

See up-thread for what distinguishes the factions (IMV):-

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/cost-to-restore-climate-a-game-changer/#comment-196757

BTW, has it not occurred to you that if/when the current cooling trend becomes evident beyond just being marginally statistically significant, the Luke-warm case can go through the shredder at the same time as the Anthro-warming case?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Richard C doesn’t believe that AGW is real”

See up-thread for the approach I take, not what you say I “believe” Nick:-

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/cost-to-restore-climate-a-game-changer/#comment-196757

“…and he seems to dominate the conversation here by pasting vast swaths of text into the threads making them unreadable.”

Would you prefer a dumbed-down, simplistic, abstract, non-dissenting, blinkered conversation Nick?

>”Certainly I haven’t seen any evidence of anyone apart from Richard T make the effort to dispute any of Richard C’s more wacky ideas.”

Those “more wacky ideas” being, specifically?

>”That said Richard C can be quite nasty when people disagree with him so I guess it’s not surprising that the regular commentators here are not willing to take the trouble to correct his misconceptions.

Again, those “misconceptions” being, specifically?

And are you insinuating Nick, that not having a belief in AGW (i.e. disagreeing with you) is a misconception?

If so, that seems a bit nasty yourself doesn’t it?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Monckton explicitly includes the discount rate”

I’m sure he did. But is it the same as Stern’s?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Maybe you should have a look at the papers” Maybe you should have looked first Nick. If you had you wouldn’t have needed to give us homework, which I’ve done and yes the discount rate is the crux of the disparity. Quoting Monckton’s report:- Australia’s Carbon Tax:……A zero inter-temporal discount rate is assumed. The minimum market rate would be 5% (Murphy et al., 2008). [page 2] Benefit in Avoided Cost of Warming-related Damage:………Stern’s mean estimate of 1.5% of GDP is assumed. On the basis that he determined it using a 1.4% discount rate, and adjusting for a zero rate, the benefit in climate-damage cost avoided rises to 1.6% of GDP. [page 3] The Cost-Benefit Ratio is: 59/1.6 = 36. Accordingly, at a zero discount rate it is 36 times costlier to mitigate CO2 emissions by typical abatement measures such as Australia’s carbon tax than to take no action at all and to endure the later cost of climate-related damage arising from the resultant warming. At a 5% discount rate, the cost-benefit ratio would be 48. Focused adaptation instead of inaction would also be likely to increase the cost-benefit ratio. [page 3] # #… Read more »

Kevin Lohse
Guest
Kevin Lohse

Nobody sensible denies that humanity has an effect upon the climate. Nobody sensible considers that effect to be catastrophic, or that it requires totalitarian global government and the impoverishment of millions of people to mitigate man’s effect on the climate. Despite an increase in the amount of plant-food in the atmosphere, temperatures have shown no statistically significant increase since 1996, according to Prof. Jones and the latest peer-reviewed research by 2 Russians predicts a cooling, possibly a new ice age. Catastrophism has no scientific basis.

Andy
Guest

Some critics of the Stern Report and its methodology include Richard Tol, Peter Lilley and Bjorn Lomborg

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Just realized you’re not making an apples-to-apples comparison Nick (and not a Monckton discount vs Stern discount comparison either) i.e. there is no discrepancy:- Stern report (p. vi) – “…the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. ” Costs and risks – lost GDP equivalent (above) is not the same as cost of abating (below). Monckton – “Stern (2006, p. vi), estimates that the cost of abating the 3 K 21st-century global warming the IPCC expects will be 0-3% of 21st-century GDP” Stern’s report is saying spend 0-3% of 21st-century GDP to abate 5% of lost global GDP (or 20%). Except Stern’s report, as Monckton and many others point out (see Andy’s comment up-thread), used questionable methodology including an unrealistic discount rate (1.4%) so that the cost-benefit was grossly distorted. By using a realistic discount rate (5%) it is “[48] times costlier to mitigate CO2 emissions by typical abatement measures such as Australia’s… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

So where exactly in the Stern report does the 0-3% value come from? Monckton says page vi but it dosn’t appear there that I can see.

Simon
Guest
Simon

A discount rate used for private capital investment projects may not be appropriate in a social context. Basically it is discounting future generations in favour of our own. Your ancestors may not be agreeable to any social discount rate above 0%.
Even quite low discount rates can lead to degradation of a finite resource, unless increased value is placed on its diminished state in the future.

Andy
Guest

Peter Lilleys report on Stern can be viewed as PDF from this GWPF link

http://www.thegwpf.org/new-report-government-cannot-rely-on-stern-review-to-justify-costly-climate-policies/

Simon
Guest
Simon

oops …. descendants not ancestors ….

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Sorry, that should read 2.89 ppm/year not ‘2.89C/year’.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Sorry again, my maths is having a bad day – it’s been a hell of a day at the office, I think I need a paracetamol.

137 yrs to raise the temp 1.2C from current CO2 levels. Then another 275 yrs to raise it another 1.2C – i.e. 412 yrs for a 2.4C rise.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”So where exactly in the Stern report does the 0-3% value come from? Monckton says page vi but it dosn’t appear there that I can see.” “Stern (2006, p. vi)” is, I think, ‘Part VI: International collective action (Chapters 21-27)’ rather than page vi. See report index:- http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm I see in PART VI, 27.1 (page 121):- “Second, and in contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP.” http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/2/0/PART_VI_Introduction_group.pdf I don’t see “0-3%” or “3%” anywhere explicitly from a cursory look but “can be limited to around 1%” implies to me that Monckton has derived that range from however Stern et al came up with the 1% “limited” figure (how/where was 1% arrived at?) because it implies a greater amount than 1% if that higher amount can be be “limited” to 1%. Somewhere there’ll be High/Limited/Low alternative scenarios (explicit or implied) I’m guessing, where High is around 3, Limited 1, and Low 0 or something like that. Stern gets a bit carried away in 27.1:- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This Review has considered the economics of climate… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”A discount rate used for private capital investment projects may not be appropriate in a social context”

It’s an economic calculation of financial commitment by society so a financial discount rate is appropriate however unpalatable that may be socially. It would be very nice socially to have 0% mortgages too but that just doesn’t happen.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ouch! GWPF’s Lilley report quotes (thanks for the link Andy):- The new study shows the Stern Review to depend critically on “selective choice of facts, unusual economic assumptions and a propagandist narrative – which would never have passed peer review”. Describing it as “policy based evidence”, Peter Lilley argues the government can no longer rely on it to justify expenditure of many billions of pounds and calls for a return return instead to “evidence based policies”. Stern’s central conclusion that “If we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year now and forever” whereas “the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of GDP each year” is found to be entirely fallacious. Lilley’s study demonstrates that the benefits of curbing emissions now and henceforth will not be five times the cost of action, as Stern claims. “It is achieved by verbal virtuosity combined with statistical sophistry. In fact, even on Stern’s figures, the cumulative costs of reducing greenhouse gases will exceed the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

FYI everyone, RT has an ‘Economics’ Open Thread here:-

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/economics/

Where you can find stuff like:-

Link to The Australian: ‘Costly decarbonisation of the economy is based on a flawed review’

Peter Lilley, British Conservative Party MP

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/economics/#comment-115028

Link to WUWT: ‘A stern rebuttal to the Stern review’

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/economics/#comment-115187

10 Things to Know

1. What is Integrated Assessment (IA)?
2. What are Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)?
3. How do IAMs and GCMs differ?
[…]

How do IAMs and GCMs differ?

Integrated assessment models generally include both physical and social science models that consider demographic, political, and economic variables that affect greenhouse gas emission scenarios in addition to the physical climate system. General Circulation Models (GCMs), however, focus on the physical climate system alone………….

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/economics/#comment-115187

Example of integrated assessment model (IAM) output:-

‘The Social Cost of CO2 from the PAGE09 Model’

See Bishop Hill for PAGE09 input issues:-

‘Climate sensitivity and the Stern report’

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/economics/#comment-123001

And much, much, more.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C, I think you are right about where Monckton got his numbers from. It is a shame he is not more explicit though.

The problem for Monckton is that his 50/1 ratio compares the Australian measures with with the Stern abatement measures and as such is meaningless. Monckton’s “analysis” certainly doesn’t achieve the outcome of comparing the Australian measures with doing nothing at all which is what he states it does.

It is slightly alarming that money is now being collected on the basis of Monckton’s potentially flawed report. Perhaps one of his friends here could contact him and find out if I have got this wrong or if he has genuinely overlooked this issue.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
Andy has already provided a concise description and a link to the article. Why do you think it is necessary to paste two thirds of the content into the comment thread?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The problem for Monckton is that his 50/1 ratio compares the Australian measures with with the Stern abatement measures and as such is meaningless” Monckton is comparing the global cost of abatement measures (mitigation) with the cost of “future adaptation at need” using an Australian case study in conjunction with the Stern report, hence the title ‘IS CO2 MITIGATION COST-EFFECTIVE?’ The answer is no:- “Conclusion: This analysis is deliberately simple, but complexity would be unlikely to change the outcome sufficiently to render any policy to mitigate CO2 emissions at all cost-effective. Removal of some of the simplifying assumptions would tend to worsen the cost-benefit ratio still further, for most of them lead to understatement of it. Results from other case studies broadly confirm the outcome in the Australian case. Therefore, future adaptation at need is recommended, but present mitigation is not.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_mitigation.pdf >”Monckton’s “analysis” certainly doesn’t achieve the outcome of comparing the Australian measures with doing nothing at all which is what he states it does” And it does:- “The Cost-Benefit Ratio is: 59/1.6 = 36. Accordingly, at a zero discount rate it is 36 times costlier to mitigate CO2 emissions by typical… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Why do you think it is necessary to paste two thirds of the content into the comment thread?”

Would you rather Peter Lilley’s calls for a return to “evidence based policies” instead of “policy based evidence” and scathing dissection of Stern be kept hidden away Nick?

Isn’t the fact that lurking “eyes” can now easily see the article content for themselves without following the link and – perish the thought – follow up their curiosity by reading Lilley’s full report, the real reason you would rather not have it all on show?

Andy
Guest

Nick, I don’t know if this 50:1 figure is based on false assertions or not.
However, the project website states this

2. … The 50 to 1 website. The website will host the video and more importantly will contain ALL the references for ALL the information contained in the video (see the link above for an example). Anyone who wants to fact-check or dispute the video will have open access to all our sources so they can see for themselves that the conclusions drawn in ’50 to 1′ are consistent with the science as understood by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

I’d hope that with a $130,000 budget, they do this in an open and transparent manner and allow comments before the video is finalised.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C, the Stern Report that Monckton references states:

“…the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP.”

According to you Monckton uses this 1% number to quantify the cost to

“…take no action at all and to endure the later cost of climate-related damage arising from the resultant warming.”

Despite your characteristic verbosity above you have not addressed this key problem with Moncktons work.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”According to you Monckton uses this 1% number to quantify the cost to “…take no action at all and to endure the later cost of climate-related damage arising from the resultant warming.” Rubbish. Monckton COMPARES, the COST OF MITIGATION i.e. “costs of action” (which is 1% of GDP if “limited”, but possibly 3%) after economic cost/benefit analysis to costs of “FUTURE ADAPTION AT NEED” i.e.”to endure the later cost of climate-related damage arising from the resultant warming”, which is now at standstill BTW, to arrive at a relative factor and finding at 5% discount that it is “[48 (the relative factor)] times costlier to mitigate CO2 emissions” than the cost of “future adaption at need”. Stern’s benefit’s don’t even kick in until 2100 and a factor of 2 times more costly to mitigate is too much, let alone 48 times. >”Despite your characteristic verbosity above you have not addressed this key problem with Moncktons work.” My “characteristic verbosity” in this case stems from your characteristic incomprehension. If you had actually read and understood my previous quotes from the Monckton report there would have been no need for these 2 comments (and a waste… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’m wrong in my response to this:-

>”It is slightly alarming that money is now being collected on the basis of Monckton’s potentially flawed report.”

My response:-

“Slightly alarming that you conclude this Nick. Australia’s carbon tax (or any other mitigation tax anywhere e.g. NZ ETS) is certainly not being collected on the basis of Monckton’s report……..(not “potentially flawed either BTW)”

I see now Nick is referring to Topher Field’s appeal for voluntary donations of a measly AU$130,000. That hardly compares with the billions ($9bn a year eventually I think) that just the Australian Govt are collecting involuntarily by way of AU$25 tax and then ETS (the latter plan having come unstuck).

AU$130,000 is 5200 Australians each volunteering a one-off AU$25 donation. The Australian carbon (sic) tax is rather more ongoing and punitive, $25 is money well spent to get rid of it.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C, You have missed out the key point.

Monckton’s “inaction” or “to take no action” is alleged to cost 1.6% of GDP.

He claims this cost of “inaction” is derived from the Stern report but it is greater than the cost of action in that report (1%) which explicitly includes measures such as “carbon prices and markets” and recommends that these actions be “prompt and strong”. This is clearly not “adaptation at need” as you characterise it.

In the Stern report the cost of doing nothing is 5-20+%

…“ if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.”

How can Monckton’s “inaction” be more expensive than Stern’s “action” when Monckton states that his cost was sourced from Stern?

Andy
Guest

I have missed something here. Does the 50:1 video campaign claim that it is using figures from the Stern Report to base its assumptions on?

UPDATE:

I found this comment on WUWT from Monckton
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/02/help-launch-climate-skeptic-film-project-50-to-1/#comment-1295001

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Does the 50:1 video campaign claim that it is using figures from the Stern Report to base its assumptions on?” The basis seems to be to me but I haven’t seen this in writing which I would prefer, maybe the campaign just assumes everyone is clear, the following comparison:- Monckton’s comparison between the Stern Report’s cost of mitigation vs the relative cost (50 times, actually 48 @ 5% discount rate) of future adaption at need as determined by Monckton’s cost/benefit analysis. I haven’t had time (and probably wont get it – night-shifting) to cross-reference the figures Monckton in his cost/benefit analysis ‘IS CO2 MITIGATION COST-EFFECTIVE?’ states he uses from the Stern Report, with the relevant source section(s) of the actual Stern Report. Chris Monckton could have made scrutiny of his analysis much easier IMO if he had simply tabulated the critical Stern-referenced data he used with each respective Stern Report sub-section or paragraph reference location (it might be possible to extract such a table with a bit of effort). I’ve spent more time answering Nick than actually getting to grips with the detail of Monckton’s cost/benefit unfortunately so until I just sit down… Read more »

Andy
Guest

Richard C – I agree that the info could be better presented, but I though that was the whole point of the video

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I though that was the whole point of the video”

I’m not a fan of videos for communicating detail. A video is fine for promotion but I think some accompanying textual background (may exist but haven’t had time to look) is more business-like.

As I alluded, the accompanying text may just be ‘IS CO2 MITIGATION COST-EFFECTIVE?’

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Monckton’s “inaction” or “to take no action” is alleged to cost 1.6% of GDP. Nick, as I said in a reply to Andy, “I think the best approach for everyone is to use the actual respective wording and quote source section references of each report when discussing each rather than short (couple of words), vague, unattributed quoting or inaccurate paraphrasing. Otherwise any discussion will degenerate into cross-purposes and confusion and nothing will be resolved.” I suggest you start a new thread laying out your argument but rather than us have to fact-check your statements and claims filtered by your interpretation/paraphrasing etc (a real chore) as above and below, that you use the actual words and source references of those that you are saying say so-and-so (including myself). >”He claims this ……..” As above, I’m not even going to bother wasting my time (that I haven’t got anyway) fact-checking this statement of yours by having to chase down what was actually claimed in the first instance rather than what you say he claimed. Lay out your argument with quotes and references in sequence and then we will be able to see first hand what… Read more »

Andy
Guest

Richard C – I understand that you may not be a fan of video, but the introductory one clearly states that there will be a website that has all the links and arguments stated in plain English

So my thoughts are that we should address any concerns to Topher Field directly,rather than have endless arguments on this blog.

Topher probably has a lot more to lose than Monckton on this one, so I am sure he wants his material pretty water tight.

Andy
Guest

There is a video update on the project from Topher here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/update-on-the-50-to-1-skeptic-documentary-video-project/#more-85774

He’d like any potential doners to know that Paypal is now available if your credit card was not accepted previously.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,

I didn’t put it as “inaction” Monckton did. That’s why I used the quotation marks. That’s what they are for.

I guess you can be excused however since you apparently haven’t had time to carefully read the one page report or compile it’s single reference to Stern. Let me know if it would be easier for you if I paste the whole thing into the thread.

Anyway, I’ll try not to trouble you further with arguments that you find “woolly” (look, more quotation marks in action!) although some may suggest that the issue is not with the argument but rather with the reader.

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Lord Stern is a self-aggrandising shill for Russian gas interests, no matter how well his supporters attempt to paper this over, and his infamous Report has been proved to contain considerable serious error. Further, the man also works for the Grantham Institute (along with ‘Fast Fingers’ Bob Ward) a vehicle the seriously weird Jeremy Grantham created to make hay from moonbeams (if you will pardon the wildly-mixed metaphor!).

Andy
Guest

For those that haven’t seen Topher’s previous work,
The Forbidden History of Terrible Taxes

and

The Forbidden History of Unpopular People

are both worth a watch

SimonP
Guest
SimonP

You call Jeremy Grantham ‘seriously weird’ whereas in my opinion he is one of the few investment managers who takes the long-view and is prepared to stake his investors’ money on it. GMO has been very successful. I agree with his opinions on debt as well:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-07/jeremy-grantham-we-have-been-conned

Andy
Guest

Grantham has quite a bit invested in Exxon and other oil companies too

SimonP
Guest
SimonP

Of course. Oil companies would make up a reasonable chunk of most portfolios. If you are investing in renewable resources, and I don’t think that is as big a part of GMO’s business as they make out, fuel is a big input cost so hedging is a good idea.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Another greenie hypocrite in the same vein as Gore perhaps?

Andy
Guest

I don’t know if Grantham is a “greenie”. Just another billionaire who is “leveraging” the climate change issue to his financial advantage

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I didn’t put it as “inaction” Monckton did. That’s why I used the quotation marks. That’s what they are for” I’ve no doubt Monckton did use the word “inaction” more than once but which instance are you referring to, from which passage, and in what context? I’m not asking for the “whole thing”, just context to know what you’re trying to communicate. >”I’ll try not to trouble you further with arguments that you find “woolly” ” Good idea, “rather than have endless arguments on this blog” as Andy puts it. I’m well aware I haven’t got all the background, of which there are masses in the Stern case, and I just haven’t got the time to crunch it all so without context and references from you I’m on a wild goose chase I’m just not going to indulge in. >”…although some may suggest that the issue is not with the argument but rather with the reader” Your argument is as clear as mud so I don’t think you’ll get many onside. FYI I’m NZ DIp. Bus. qualified with strong economics and finance so It’s not as if I’m coming into cost/benefit cold. Implicit… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Stern’s approach is on “precautionary principle” and it incurs an opportunity cost from day one e.g. funds spent on climate mitigation cannot be spent on health or education for example.”

That’s govt tax revenue spending. In the businesses that provide the tax revenue for the govt to spend, income that must be committed to carbon (sic) mitigation taxes is not available for business investment, or anything else for that matter.

Every export/import container going through NZ ports (export being my current employment along with a good proportion of the NZ workforce)) currently incurs a carbon mitigation tax as does the domestic logistics and any operations emitting carbon. This imposition is totally ineffectual in climate terms even if the threat eventuates (as is Australia’s carbon tax) i.e. the carbon tax represents an unnecessary opportunity cost to business.

2010, Pacifica Shipping ETS Levies (indirect taxes) in Open Threads ‘Economics’ here:-

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/economics/#comment-27596

2010: “Currently the ETS Levy added by Pacifica is $6 per TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit), based on the $25 New Zealand unit price.”

Don’t know what the up-to-date situation is though.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
You say “I’ve no doubt Monckton did use the word “inaction” more than once but which instance are you referring to, from which passage, and in what context?”

Actually Monckton used the word inaction exactly once, on page one, of one.

http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Is_CO2_mitigation_cost-effectove_Single_Page_Lord_Monckton_Foundation_Briefing_20130411.pdf

By the way your argument from authority would be more convincing if your qualifications weren’t so underwhelming. Nice try though.

Andy
Guest

Please can we lay off the personal issues thanks?

Andy
Guest

On the Tooic of Peter Lilley, he has published this well written piece in The Spectator about shale gas in the UK

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8905731/the-only-way-is-shale/

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Andy, I totally agree.

I guess I was a little bored by Richard C’s various excuses for not addressing the issue and his various tangential remarks but bringing personal issues to the argument is never warranted. I apologise for any offense caused.

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Did you not understand the phrase ‘making hay from moonbeams’? Becoming wealthy has nothing to do with morality, sanity or having good mental health. Some of the very wealthy are not people who achieve acclaim for their saintliness!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nick you say:- >”…your argument from authority would be more convincing if your qualifications weren’t so underwhelming.” The only difference between my Diploma level Managerial Economics (A gained) say, and Bachelor level is the maths: algebra vs calculus. The content/coursework and reference reading was exactly the same when I compared each syllabus. Neither does the concept of opportunity cost change between High School introductory level economics and Degree/Bachelor level that I’m aware of but feel free to update my education if you think it’s necessary from your position of (implied, but I’d like to know some more) higher education if necessary. As for the impact of unnecessary punitive taxes via Stern’s advocacy (S1 scenario) vs Monckton’s (and many others seeking a realistic range of alternative carbon mitigation measures) advocacy (M1 & M2 scenarios), my interest in the issue stems from a) working in what is currently a very difficult part of the export sector (more below), and b) a general interest in the economics and facilitation of international trade for which I took the Diploma paper International Trade and Finance (B+ gained). Total Diploma cost $7500. In short, I have a vested interest… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nick, you say, with reference to a one page summary of ‘Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?’:- Hi Richard C, You say “I’ve no doubt Monckton did use the word “inaction” more than once but which instance are you referring to, from which passage, and in what context?” Actually Monckton used the word inaction exactly once, on page one, of one. http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Is_CO2_mitigation_cost-effectove_Single_Page_Lord_Monckton_Foundation_Briefing_20130411.p In the one page summary you link to Nick, Monckton uses the word “inaction” EXACTLY ZERO times (by pdf search and by eye). He actually says this in the one page summary (my annotation – [S1],[M1[],M2], and my emphasis):- Cost-benefit ratio: The cost of immediate mitigation [S1] divided by that of later adaptation [M2] is 80% / 1.5%, or 53. It is at least 50 times more expensive and less cost-effective to mitigate CO2 emissions [S1] by typical measures such as Australia’s carbon tax than to take no action at all today [M1] and, instead, to meet the later and far lesser cost of climate-related damage arising from unabated global warming of 3 Cº the day after tomorrow [M2]. http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Is_CO2_mitigation_cost-effectove_Single_Page_Lord_Monckton_Foundation_Briefing_20130411.pdf In no way can the implied M2 scenario (unlikely as it is to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”So where exactly in the Stern report does the 0-3% value come from?” [Nick asking] >”Somewhere there’ll be High/Limited/Low alternative scenarios (explicit or implied) I’m guessing, where High is around 3, Limited 1, and Low 0 or something like that.” [ My reply] Monckton from one page summary of ‘‘IS CO2 MITIGATION COST-EFFECTIVE?’:- The benefit: Stern (2006, p. vi), estimates that the avoided-cost benefit of abating the 3 Cº 21st-century global warming expected by the IPCC will be 0-3% of 21st-century global GDP. http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Is_CO2_mitigation_cost-effectove_Single_Page_Lord_Monckton_Foundation_Briefing_20130411.pdf Monckton from ‘IS CO2 MITIGATION COST-EFFECTIVE?’ page 3:- Stern (2006) concluded that, though previous projections had indicated 2-3 K anthropogenic warming by 2100, causing a permanent global output loss estimated at 0-3% (mean 1.5%), more recent evidence suggested 5-6 K warming by the end of this century, and possibly 10-11 K warming by 2200. However, IPCC (2007) presented estimates of radiative forcing and warming this century under six emissions scenarios (op. cit., p. 18), to each of which it accorded equal weight. Taking their mean, a central estimate ΔTC21 of 21st-century warming is 2.8 K (Table 1), of which 0.6 K is already committed, so that the implicit central… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Richard C, this is a forum for conversation, not a school yard.

No matter how clever or oblique you think you are being, threats of violence are the actions of a bully. Threats to have someone else perform violence on your behalf are the actions of a coward.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Nick you say:- >”Richard C, this is a forum for conversation, not a school yard.” If you are implying a recounting of my workplace experience in this forum to illustrate a very real example of the stresses of economic constraints (Psa-caused disruption in my case but it could be the Christchurch earthquake in another person’s example) is a schoolyard activity of some sort, you’re not conversing, you’re insulting me and my workmates Nick. >No matter how clever or oblique you think you are being, threats of violence are the actions of a bully.” There was no “threats of violence” Nick. You misunderstand and misconstrue the point entirely as usual. I was illustrating the fact that literally thousands of low paid workers (some of them rough diamonds admittedly) slaving away in very trying conditions would take a dim view of your CO2 mitigation policy (Stern’s) if they could get to grips with how it impacts them as I can even when it’s only cents at a time. >”Threats to have someone else perform violence on your behalf are the actions of a coward.” Misunderstanding, miscomprehending, and misconstruing again. There was no such insinuation (and… Read more »

Post Navigation